Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, a prominent atomic physicist, has authored 20 physics textbooks during the last two decades. His latest scientific paper suggests that the traditional “absorption band” model for calculating the effect of atmospheric CO2 during the radiative transfer process is flawed. New calculations reveal that the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is just 0.4 K, and the human contribution to that value is a negligible 0.02 K.

Collision and radiative processes in

emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide

“One can explain why the absorption band model is not suitable for the change of the radiative flux due to doubling of the concentration of CO2 molecules. This quantity is determined by spectral ranges where the atmospheric optical thickness is of the order of one. Because averaging over oscillations for the absorption band model removes such ranges from consideration, this model leads to a large error.”

“[I]t follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved.”

“Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

Conclusion

“Above, we connect the emission of a gaseous layer located over a hot surface with the greenhouse phenomenon in the Earth’s atmosphere due to CO2 molecules. This analysis exhibits the importance of interaction of a radiating molecule with surrounding air molecules that is essential both in broadening of spectral lines and for absorption of CO2 molecules by other atmospheric components, as well as emission of these components. The evaluations fulfilled show that the contribution of emission of CO2 molecules to the total radiative flux directed toward the Earth is approximately 20%, as well as this contribution to its derivation over the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount. Comparison of methods of the absorption band which uses the absorption coefficient averaged over its frequency oscillations and the ‘line-by-line’ method without this averaging exhibits the accordance of these methods for determination of the radiative fluxes and a strong difference in evaluation of its derivative. This shows the importance of the ‘line-by-line’ method for the analysis of climatic problems.”

“Note that above we give a simple algorithm to determine the total emission of the Earth’s atmosphere due to CO2 molecules with using the spectroscopic parameters of these molecules on the basis of classical molecular spectroscopy. We note the principal steps which allow us to obtain this algorithm in a simple form. First, there is a local thermodynamic equilibrium for vibrationally excited molecules. Therefore, radiation is created by vibrationally excited molecules which are formed in collisions with air molecules, and their number density is determined by the Boltzmann formula. Second, the atmospheric optical thickness exceeds one, i.e. radiation toward the Earth and outside are separated, and the radiative flux at a given frequency is the blackbody flux, so that the radiative temperature for this frequency is the temperature of an effective layer. Third, interaction between carbon dioxide molecules and other optically active atmospheric components is of importance. This means that a change of the concentration of CO2 molecules leads simultaneously to a change of the radiative flux due to other components.”

“Based on the total absorption coefficient, which is a sum of those due to CO2 molecules and other atmospheric components, we take into account this effect. As a result, one can evaluate an additional radiative flux to the Earth’s surface due to a change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and the corresponding analysis convinces us that contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

Sorry AndyG55, human emissions are in fact around 5% of natural emissions per year. But they aren’t 5% of the increase in CO2 concentration. The math doesn’t work this way. And if an author gets this simple thing wrong (he cites it, but didn’t seem to bother checking if it the value could be correct), then what else does he get wrong?

CO2 contribution to warming is immeasurable..

Not true, no matter how often you repeat this mantra of yours.

..as you have constantly shown

I see, so the validity of climate science depends on my ability to break through into your echo chamber of disinformation? And my failure to do that is proof that CO2 doesn’t cause warming? Wow 😉

pgs. 738-741
Kaufmann, 2007https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d9d9/eb6e213a1fa8fec2c877685baa81817b15a5.pdfChemical Assays of CO2, 1812–1961“Volumetric methods were sometimes used, in which a known volume of dry air was relieved of its CO2 and the volume shrinkage measured. An automated process of this type developed by Kreutz in Giessen, Germany, was used to compile 64,000 measurements. Chemists used pure samples of CO2 to check their work, and they compared results with each other. Several Nobel Prize winners were involved. About 90,000 individual determinations were logged among over 180 peer-reviewed papers (Beck, 2007).”

“Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck these determinations were near the ocean or on islands, when practical. In general, the chemists would try to keep clear of any known CO2-emitting source. Several of the chemists made plots of wind direction vs. CO2 levels, observing some directionality. From 1945–1965 world hydrocarbon use as fuel doubled (Robinson et al., 2007) as CO2 levels dropped from 415 to 325 ppm, so some other major source of CO2 had to exist.”

—Whence Cometh the CO2?“More than one estimate indicates that the anthropogenic contribution to the present CO2 level is 4%, or 15 ppm (Jaworowski, 1997). Increases in CO2 level in the past 100 years appear to follow rather than precede the slight surface warmings (Beck, 2007; Jaworowski, 2007). Since there is 50 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere at present, one must examine the known relationship of temperature and gas solubility in water.”

“During the Little Ice Age and later, say 1700–1850, the lower temperatures meant that more CO2 would have dissolved in sea water, according to Robert Bunsen’s measurements around 1850, and many more since. This is not a trivial difference, since 20% more CO2 dissolves in water at 15C than at 20C (Partington, 1957). Therefore, steady concentrations of CO2 in air before about 1900, as claimed by Warmers, are unlikely. When ocean temperatures become warmer, less CO2 can be retained in the upper 3000-m layer of oceans, and it is exhaled into the atmosphere.”

No, as the biosphere runs better because of the natural warming, far more places contribute to atmospheric CO2.

The whole process of natural growth and decay was held back in cooler places because of cold during the LIA.

Biosphere has been playing catch up.

Think about it. the AGW alarmists have been making all sorts of claims about melting releasing CH4, are you would have to be very that naïve to think that a whole heap more of the biosphere wasn’t contributing CO2

… and you would have to be very naïve to think that a whole heap more of the biosphere wasn’t using and contributing CO2 to the atmosphere because of the slight warming.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar12. June 2018 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

David russel

That’s kinda funny, dismissing the chemical methods for determining the CO2 level. How do you suppose Keeling calibrated his relatively primitive NDIR gas analyser in 1957? Why, with chemical means!

The chemical method is much more accurate than even a good gas analyser from Rosemount or Horiba. NDIR happens to be convenient, and continuous.

The chemical methods used in the 20’s were extremely accurate. So personally, I see no reason to suspect the operators of all that equipment were unable to determine the CO2 concentration, particularly in the 20th Century.

I agree it is very inconvenient for those who hold, without any evidence, that the CO2 level rose gradually and continuously since 1850, for example. The methods available at the time contradict that claim.

It is also reasonable to expect that following the strong warming of 1920-1940 the concentration should have risen.

The oceans and biosphere can be both net sources and net sinks for CO2. But because the natural sources and sinks are so much larger than any human contribution (two orders of magnitude), any imbalance in the natural sources and sinks could contribute heavily to the CO2 increase/change.

Reimer et al., 2013https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jgrc.20319“The study of air-sea CO2 fluxes (FCO2) in the coastal region is needed to better understand the processes which influence the direction and magnitude of FCO2 and to constrain the global carbon budget. The near-shore region was a weak annual net source of CO2 to the atmosphere (0.043 mol CO2 m-2 y-1); where 91% of the outgassed FCO2 was contributed during the upwelling season.”
—
Astor et al., 2013http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf“Based on these observations, 72% of the increase in fCO2sea in Cariaco Basin between 1996 and 2008 can be attributed to an increasing temperature trend of surface waters, making this the primary factor controlling fugacity at this location. … An increase/decrease of 1°C is usually followed by an increase/decrease of 16–20 matm of fCO2sea. Thus, the SST increase of 1.3°C between 1996 and 2008 accounted for 16 matm increase in fCO2sea explaining around 72% of the fCO2sea observed variation. This suggests that the changes measured in fCO2sea were primarily the result of surface-ocean warming in Cariaco Basin. … These observations confirm that this area is a consistent source of CO2 to the atmosphere. The main process controlling the long-term changes in surface fCO2sea at CARIACO was temperature, with net community production playing a secondary role. … At the CARIACO site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events.”
—
Ikawa et al., 2013https://www.biogeosciences.net/10/4419/2013/bg-10-4419-2013.html“We estimated that the coastal area off Bodega Bay was likely an overall source of CO2 to the atmosphere based on the following conclusions: (1) the overall CO2 flux estimated from both eddy covariance and pCO2 measurements showed a source of CO2; (2) although the relaxation period during the 2008 measurements were favorable to CO2 uptake, CO2 flux during this period was still a slight source; (3) salinity and SST were found to be good predictors of the CO2 flux for both eddy covariance and pCO2 measurements, and 99% of the historical SST and salinity data available between 1988 and 2011 fell within the range of our observations in May–June 2007, August–September 2008 and November 2010–July~2011, which indicates that our data set was representative of the annual variations in the sea state. Based on the developed relationship between pCO2, SST and salinity, the study area between 1988 and 2011 was estimated to be an annual source of CO2 of ~ 35 mol C m−2 yr−1. The peak monthly CO2 flux of ~ 7 mol C m−2 month−1 accounted for almost 30% of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface mixed layer.”
—
Biswas et al., 2018https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Protusha_Biswas/publication/323695965_Urban_Wetlands_-_CO2_sink_or_source_A_case_study_on_the_aquaculture_ponds_of_East_Kolkata_Wetlands/links/5aa64f7aaca272d448baded8/Urban-Wetlands-CO2-sink-or-source-A-case-study-on-the-aquaculture-ponds-of-East-Kolkata-Wetlands.pdf“The era of global warming and increased emission of greenhouse gases can be marked by the beginning of the industrial age. It is also true that under several conditions, natural ecosystems can be equally responsible for CO2 emission like any other anthropogenic activities which continuously release heat-trapping gases in the process of development. … East Kolkata Wetland (EKW) is an urban or peri-urban wetland located on the outskirts of the Kolkata City which performs multi-facet activities, carbon sink being one of them. The raw waste from the city is naturally treated in this wetland system, however, the aquaculture ponds situated in these wetlands which make use of this waste water for fishery is rarely studied. The present study aims to see whether the aquaculture ponds of EKW complex are acting as a source or a sink. Airwater carbon dioxide (CO2) flux was estimated for three consecutive seasons in a year and it was found that the system is acting as a CO2 source in all the three seasons.”
—–
Wang et al., 2018https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lno.10614“We conducted a free‐water mass balance‐based study to address the rate of metabolism and net carbon exchange for the tidal wetland and estuarine portion of the coastal ocean and the uncertainties associated with this approach were assessed. We measured open water diurnal O2 and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) dynamics seasonally in a salt marsh‐estuary in Georgia, U.S.A. with a focus on the marsh‐estuary linkage associated with tidal flooding. We observed that the overall estuarine system was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and coastal ocean and a net sink for oceanic and atmospheric O2.”
—–
Li et al., 2018https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169418300660“Our calculated CO2 areal fluxes were in the upper-level magnitude of published data, demonstrating the importance of mountainous rivers and streams as a global greenhouse gas source, and urgency for more detailed studies on CO2 degassing, to address a global data gap for these environments. … Rivers have been widely reported to be supersaturated in carbon dioxide (CO2) with respect to the atmosphere, and are a net source of atmospheric CO2 (Butman and Raymond, 2011; Raymond et al., 2013).”
—–
Spafford and Risk, 2018https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JG004115“Lakes may function as either sinks or sources of CO2. … We quantified the net surface flux of CO2 across a transect of the littoral zone [near shore area] of a small deep oligotrophic lake in eastern Nova Scotia, Canada, and examined potential drivers. The littoral zone [near shore area] was a net source for CO2, on average emitting 0.171 ± 0.023 μmol CO2 • m−2 • s−1, but we did observe significant temporal variation across diel and seasonal periods, as well as with distance from shore.”

You’re welcome to believe as you wish, David. I am open to the position that a semi-substantial portion of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic. But textbook science says that any imbalance in the natural emission sources/sinks can easily overwhelm the anthropogenic component because the former is so much larger than the latter.

Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (textbook) Murry, 2012“Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

it is widely known that 25%-30% of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans.

That’s not a “known”. That’s a position taken by the IPCC. The truth is, we know very little about carbon sources vs. sinks. Much of what we “know” is just models and projections and agreed-upon conclusions (i.e., “consensus” science). Are you open to the possibility that this is not “settled” science, or are you convinced that we know all there is to know about the carbon cycle and how anthropogenic emissions fit in?

McKinley et al., 2017http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-marine-010816-060529“That the growth of the partial pressure of CO2 gas in the atmosphere ( pCO2 atm) drives a growing oceanic sink is consistent with our basic understanding that, as the globally averaged atmosphere-to-ocean pCO2 gradient increases, carbon accumulation in the ocean will occur at an increasing rate (Section 3). This behavior has been illustrated clearly with models [not observations] forced with only historically observed increases in pCO2 atm and no climate variability or change (Graven et al. 2012, Ciais et al. 2013). Nonetheless, critical mysteries remain and weigh heavily on our ability to quantify relationships between the perturbed global carbon cycle and climate change. … The current inability to accurately quantify the mean CO2 sink regionally or locally also suggests that present-day observational constraints are inadequate to support a detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works and how it is responding to intensifying climate change. This lack of mechanistic understanding implies that our ability to model (Roy et al. 2011, Ciais et al. 2013, Frolicher et al. 2015, Randerson et al. ¨ 2015), and thus to project the future ocean carbon sink, including feedbacks caused by warming and other climate change, is seriously limited. … The sum of the available evidence indicates that variability in the ocean carbon sink is significant and is driven primarily by physical processes of upwelling, convection, and advection. Despite evidence for a growing sink when globally integrated (Khatiwala et al. 2009, 2013; Ciais et al. 2013; DeVries 2014), this variability, combined with sparse sampling, means that it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring. … [T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”

John Kehr of the INCONVENIENT SKEPTIC, long ago showed that CO2 doesn’t warm the atmosphere, because the RATE of energy leaving the planet always exceeds the increase postulated warm forcing power of CO2.

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Excerpt:

“If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.”

1) To my claim that it’s widely known that 25-30% of human emissions are absorbed by the oceans, the reply I got was “Hey, that’s just the IPCC’s opinion.” My riposte to this is 2-fold: a) that proves my point; and b) it’s easy enough to demonstrate, as we know very precisely how much fossil fuel emissions are and when you add that amount to the air it’s 33% more than the Keeling guys can measure. Whatever is going on in nature (which we can not precisely quantify), the heat sinks net remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

2) To my point that the earth is greening, the response seems to be that the more plants flourish, the more they rot. Well living plants remove CO2, but rotting plants add methane and not so much CO2. So the “rotting point” misses the mark.

3) Based on the above, it seems more certain that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is totally the result of human emissions.

4) Something I recall about C14 should answer this question more scientifically. Fossil fuels don’t have C14, so an analysis of C14 ratios in the atmospheric CO2 should resolve any doubt as to my claims.

“it seems more certain that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is totally the result of human emissions.”

No. that is an argument from ignorance.

There are plenty of other increases in sources of CO2 that come into play through natural warming.

Termites for instance.

Whole tracts of land suddenly become active after being subdues by cold. Major CO2 sources are the jungles, and there is plenty of evidence that oceans have been net carbon sources. Basic physics says they should be.

To my claim that it’s widely known that 25-30% of human emissions are absorbed by the oceans, the reply I got was “Hey, that’s just the IPCC’s opinion.”

I actually quoted from a textbook on atmospheric physics, but you’re welcome to concoct what you wish to.

a) that proves my point

I don’t think you “proved” your point that we “know” how much anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans. But again, you do not appear to have an open mind on this and thus it is rather pointless to continue.

This is kind of backward. If the rate at which the planet loses energy towards space is greater than what it receives from the Sun, the planet cools. If it’s the other way around it warms (e.g. the heat content increases, internal variability and processes determines where this changes temperatures in whatever direction).

CO2 concentration changes cause an imbalance meaning less energy will be lost to space for some time.

Just to make it super clear. Even an Earth with a surface temperature of 100°C caused by Venus level atmospheric effects would not radiate more towards space than it receives from the Sun.

I spent a few weeks in Germany back in 2015. It was a good experience but I noticed that many Germans have drunk the greenie kool-aid as typified by our resident troll SebH on this site. I wonder if there is any other country on earth whose people are as brainwashed as they are. They are doing serious damage to their country’s reputation as the land of poets and thinkers. Time and again supertroll has had the errors in his thinking and his posts drawn to his attention and yet he lacks the humility and intellectual curiosity to grasp these.

This is funny, because you guys keep saying that your opponents never post anything with substance … so where is the substance in these two replies? It’s just more hatred and the hubris of feeling superior because you think you are the ones getting it right 😉

Sunsettommy, I think I see a shortcoming in The Inconvenient Skeptic’s theory that you quote.

As I understand it, his position is that a warming body must, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, radiate heat at a greater rate thus resulting in cooling. The difficulty that I have with it is that it seems to prohibit our emergence from the last ice age. Or the short term warming that we sometimes have. That is, if it applies to warming of CO2 etiology, then it applies to all warming.

It is obvious that as the planet leaves the LIA period this planet will naturally warm-up. It is also obvious that as the planet defrosts out of the LIA then CO2 should rise. And that is the ONLY NATURAL EFFECT happening. Man’s contribution to CO2 levels is, when viewed in the historical context, piffling, meager, insubstantial, not worth looking at, TRIVIAL!

Looking at the past 10k to 1 million years this process has happen many times, with CO2 being a lagging effect of the temperature. Never at any point in history when CO2 was high and the temperature was much warmer than has the bulk of life on the planet been threatened.

However at any time when the planet cools (say 1°C lower than today), or when CO2 is at a low level, then many species have died off. Cold and lack of CO2 is the enemy here, NOT HEAT.
It’s virtually inconceivable that this planet now can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Any level of CO2 above 400ppm is extremely good for life, and only those possessed of a ‘anomalous thought processes’ would believe otherwise.

Looking at the past 10k to 1 million years this process has happen many times, with CO2 being a lagging effect of the temperature.

CO2 lags the temperature as well as it amplifies temperature changes.

Never at any point in history when CO2 was high and the temperature was much warmer than has the bulk of life on the planet been threatened.

Are you conveniently forgetting the mass extinction events caused by extrem CO2 levels and warming?

However at any time when the planet cools (say 1°C lower than today), or when CO2 is at a low level, then many species have died off. Cold and lack of CO2 is the enemy here, NOT HEAT.

Care to give a source for that bold claim? Species have generally survived ice ages … real ice ages. Why do you think that a temperature like we experienced at the end of the 19th century caused “many species [to] die off”?

It’s virtually inconceivable that this planet now can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Any level of CO2 above 400ppm is extremely good for life, and only those possessed of a ‘anomalous thought processes’ would believe otherwise.

Why would the planet ever have “too much CO2”? The only ones thinking in these terms are pseudoskeptics. CO2 is good for life, the resulting temperature changes not so much.

I kind of like your creativity in finding new ways to write insults down that don’t get “snipped”. If only you could apply this creativity to something more useful than this pseudoskepticism act.

Why do you always need to comment on everything I write in multiple incoherent comments, AndyG55? Just say you deny everything that climate scientists and physicists say is happening and instead believe in your own version of reality that is more compatible with how you like things to be. That’s perfectly ok, you know …

Sorry tomOmason, there is no “version of physics”, there is just physics. And you just got it wrong. You have some kind of fantasy about mankind’s emissions not playing a significant role and I’d guess you’ve come to that conclusion after reading countless blogs like this one. So please don’t point at me and claim that I would just be reciting rubbish … look at yourself, where did you get your “rubbish” from?

There is no “physics.” There is only reality. “Physics” is just our human attempt to describe reality as best we can. It is clear that the extremists can’t tell the difference between reality and their own misconceptions of it.

To calculate the impact on temperature for GHG you always see a logarithmic formula for one particular component. Shouldn’t that be a formula for all GHG together including a weihting factor per component?

The logarithmic function is simple geometry and the nature of absorption when EMR transmitting through a responsive medium.

If half the EMR is absorbed in the first 10m then half of what arrives at the next 10m will be transmitted or one quarter of the original. On it goes halving for every 10m but never reaching zero transmitted. This process is described mathematically as a logarithmic function.

Water vapour is the dominant infrared EMR responsive gas in Earth’s atmosphere. However there are some wavelengths where water vapour does not absorb much but CO2 does. At these wavelengths water vapour is considered transparent and does not absorb any of the EMR energy but CO2 does. In that regard the two gases can be considered independently.

If both gases had the same absorption characterisers for all frequencies then CO2 would not make any difference as it is a tiny fraction compared with water vapour.

@Marinus 5. June 2018 at 9:12 PM
I’m with you on that!
Personally I feel plotting actual temperatures/time and CO2/time (not anomalies) on a log/linear graphs would us a better feel for what the temperatures and CO2 levels are doing.

Just like audio frequency response, that’s on log-level(in dBs)/log-frequency scales as your hearing in very nonlinear, and linear scaling would overemphasize the inaudible.

On seeing the Smirnov article reporting that CO2’s effect is logarithmic rather than linear, I remembered that I had heard about this years ago. Anthony Watt, in 2013 gave a presentation wherein he presents a graph of this and attributes it to the IPCC!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_-A-uDu2fQ @ 25:00

He also covered the decrease in water vapor, whose increase is a sine qua non for the warmist argument. @17:00

At 9:00 he reported that his own experiment demonstrates that replacing whitewash in 1979 with latex on the little boxes that contain the thermometers increases the measurement by as much as 1 degree.

I am cheered to see that add’l studies add weight to earlier ones, but depressed that nothing seems to change. If only it were truly a scientific dispute instead of science vs political agenda.

In response to all the discussion about what gets emitted to outer space: CO2 doesn’t change this one iota. What gets emitted is a factor of TOA insolation less albedo + or – the effects of heat sinks. The theory of AGW from increased CO2 has to do with the raising of the effective emission altitude of IR due to higher concentrations of CO2. As the EEA rises, it gets colder (ref: lapse rate) in the troposphere, and this is what pushes up the surface temperature to compensate. But given a steady TOA insolation and albedo, the emission temperature never changes.

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy